JUDGMENT Loknath Prasad, J.- This civil revision application has been directed against tile judgment dated 18.12.1996 passed by Munsif, Giridih in Eviction Suit no. 12/96 thereby and thereunder the suit of tile plaintiff-landlord for eviction of the defendant-appellant on the ground of personal necessity of the suit premises was decreed and the appellant-defendant was directed to deliver the vacant possession of the suit premises. 2. The fact in short for the purpose of this revision is that the O.P. plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit alleging therein that his father, Jogeshwar Prasad Barnwal constructed a house over plot no. 669 of Isri Bazar and inducted defendant-petitioner as tenant on a portion of the house which consists of three rooms as described in schedule of the plaint on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- p.m. The said Jogeshwar Prasad Burnwal, died leaving behind his throe sons, Jitendra Prasad Barnwal, the plaintiff, Dilip Prasad Burnwal and Anil Kumar Barnwal and they jointly inherited the land and house of plot no. 669 but Dilip Prasad Barnwal also died leaving behind a son Bablu Prasad Barnwal and a daughter. After that there was a partition in the family i.e. between plaintiff, his brother Anil and nephew Bablu and half portion of the house situates on plot no. 669 was allotted to the plaintiff and half to Anil Kumar Barnwal and another separate house was allotted to Bablu. So according to partition all the three branches are in possession of the same. The suit premises in which defendant was a tenant was allotted in favour of the plaintiff and as such necessary intimation was given to the defendant and the defendant attorned rent to the plaintiff and accepted him as a landlord. It is also the case of the plaintiff that earlier plaintiff was carrying on business with his brother but after partition brother of the plaintiff also separated in business and as such the plaintiff is idle and he has got no other suitable accommodation for starting a business and so for his livelihood the plaintiff wants to open a shop in the suit premises which is on the G.T. Road and suitable for business and thus, requested the defendant to vacate the same in May 1996 but he refused to vacate the same, hence the suit was instituted for eviction of the defendant for the reason mentioned above. 3. 3. The defendant contested the suit by filing a separate written statement and denied relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties but has not specifically denied that originally the suit premises belongs to Jogeshwar Prasad Barnwal or the alleged partition in the family of the plaintiff. However, it was contended that brother and nephew are necessary parties in the suit and even the sister of Bablu also a necessary party because they jointly inherited the property of Jogeshwar Prasad Barnwal. This defendant has also denied that he was inducted as a monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises by the father of the plaintiff on monthly rent of Rs. 500/- and after the death of plaintiff's father he was also paying rent to the plaintiff. A denial was made about the personal necessity of the suit premises and it was submitted on behalf of this defendant that plaintiff is carrying on business of cloth in the name and style as Barnwal Cloth Store at Ishari Bazar so it is totally false to say that the plaintiff has requested the defendant to vacate the suit premises as he wants to open a shop. 4. The trial court recorded a finding that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and after the partition in the family of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was alloted the suit premises and he was the landlord of the defendant and as the plaintiff is idle so he got bonafide requirement of the suit premises and the plaintiff requires the same in good faith for his own occupation and for starting a business and thus, decreed the suit and ordered the defendant to vacate the entire suit premises within 60 days from the date of the judgment. 4A. 4A. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied With this decreetal order this revision has been preferred mainly on the ground that the trial court erred in recording a finding of relationship of landlord• and tenant and also there was no personal need of the plaintiff for starting a business in the suit premises and in any view of the matter, the trial court has not recorded a specific finding that reasonable requirement of such occupation may be substantially satisfied by evicting the tenant from a part only of the building as required under Section 11 (c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (to be called here-in-after only the Control Act.) 5. Admittedly the plaintiff-O.P instituted the aforesaid Title suit under Section 11 (c) of the Control Act only for the reason that the building is reasonably and good faith required by the plaintiff for starting a business. No doubt the defendant has denied about the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties but the trial court rightly observed that the denial, if any, is a vague denial. On the other hand, from the evidence of the plaintiff, his brother Anil Kumar Barnwal and that of other witness including memorandum of partition which was effected between Barnawal, it can be said that after the death of father of the plaintiff who died leaving behind his three sons there was partition in the family and half portion of the plot no. 669 in which the suit premises is situated, allotted to the share of the plaintiff. The counterfoil of the rent receipt i.e. Ext. 1 series also clearly indicate that defendant was paying rent Rs. 500/- p.m. and is a tenant from the time of the father of the plaintiff. On the other hand, admittedly the defendant is in occupation of the suit premises which consists of three rooms and it is on plot no. 669 of Ishari Bazar but no document was filed or any evidence was adduced that this defendant is the owner of the suit premises or the suit premises belongs to some one else. So this fact is well proved that the suit premises was allotted in the share of the plaintiff and the defendant was his tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 500/- p.m. and so trial court rightly recorded a finding that there was relationship of landlord and tenant. So this fact is well proved that the suit premises was allotted in the share of the plaintiff and the defendant was his tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 500/- p.m. and so trial court rightly recorded a finding that there was relationship of landlord and tenant. Regarding the claim of the landlord that building is reasonably and good faith required by him as he is idle and he wants to open a shop, and on this point, there is consistent evidence of the plaintiff, his brother and other witnesses and it has come in evidence that after partition in the family the cloth shop allotted in the share of another brother and the plaintiff is virtually idle and the suit premies is a suitable place as it is just on the G.T. Road for opening a business there. 6. No doubt on behalf of defendant evidence was adduced to show that the plaintiff is running a cloth shop along with his brother but from the evidence it appears that the cloth shop belongs to the brother of the plaintiff and it was allotted in his share after the partition. In that view of the matter, the plaintiff has been able to establish that the suit premises is required by him in good faith as a landlord for his own occupation for opening a shop. So the personal need of the plaintiff for opening a shop in the suit premises is well proved. 7. However, learned counsel for the petitioner rightly submitted that even though the plaintiff O P. has been able to establish his claim that the suit premises is required by him in good faith for his own occupation still trial court is required to make an enquiry and to record a specific finding as required under Section 11 (c) of the Act that the reasonable requirement of such occupation may be substantially satisfied by evicting the defendant from the part of the building and allowing the tenant to continue in occupation of the rest if the tenant agreed to such occupation and in absence of such finding the order of the trial court directing the eviction' of the tenant from the entire suit premises which admittedly consists of three rooms is apparently illegal in view of the aforesaid proviso. On perusal of the judgment of the trial court it is clear that the trial court erred in not recording a specific finding on this point because admittedly the suit premises consists of only three rooms and the plaintiff requires only that portion of the premises which is suitable for opening a shop. If that is so the trial court should have considered the case of both the parties if at all the partial eviction of the defendant-tenant will serve the purpose of the landlord and the defendant also agrees to occupy the remaining portion of the suit premises on payment of rent to be fixed by the court. The court is required, in such a situation, to record a specific finding if the partial eviction will serve the purpose or the entire suit premises is required by the landlord for his bonafide requirement. 8. The Supreme Court in similar situation in a case reported in AIR 1994 SC 489 (Krishna Murari Prasad Vs. Mitar Singh) specifically observed that even though the suit premises consists of one room still trial court is required to record a specific finding if the partial eviction will serve the purpose as required in Section 11(c) of the Act. Thus, remitted the case to the trial court only for a limited purpose whether the premises can be divided and eviction of the tenant from the part of the premises can substantially satisfy the landlord's need. The Division Bench of our own High Court in a case reported in 1993 Vol.1 B.L.J.R 281 : 1992 (2) PLJR 692 (M/s. Bharati Pustak Kendra vs. C.L. Daruka) held that even if the tenant does not raise this point of partial eviction, the court has to make an enquiry in view of Section 11 (1)(c) of the Act which is mandatory. Thus, though the finding of the trial court that the suit premises was required for bonafide need and occupation of the landlord still the case was remitted for a limited purpose if partial eviction of the suit premises will serve the requirement of the landlord and to record a specific finding thereon in view of the provision of Section 11 (1)(c) of the Control Act and if the partial eviction will not serve the requirement then only the eviction order for the entire suit premises can be recorded by the trial court on the basis of the evidence on the record or the parties may adduce evidence on this point. Similar is the view of this Court in a case reported in 1987 P.L.J.R 582 (Dr. Hemchandra Jha vs. Smt. Anjana Lal) and the case was remitted to the trial court for giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence only on the point whether the petitioner should be evicted from the whole building or his partial eviction will fulfil the requirement of the landlord and the finding of the court below on other question were duly confirmed. 9. 9. In the instant case also the parties had not led evidence to show that if the entire suit premises is required for bonafide use of the landlord for opening a shop or the partial eviction as required under Section 11 (c) of the Control Act will serve the purpose of the landlord and as such in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court and that of our own High Court as mentioned above the finding of the trial court that there is relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties and the landlord is in need and the suit premises is reasonably required for the occupation of the landlord for obtaining a shop is though, hereby confirmed but the operative portion of the order of the trial court for eviction of the defendant from the entire suit premises is hereby set aside and the suit is again remitted back to the trial court i.e. Munsif, Giridih with this observation that his finding on other issues are confirmed but the trial court will give opportunity to both the parties to adduce additional evidence only on limited point if at all the partial eviction of the suit premises of the tenant-petitioner will serve bonafide need and requirement of the landlord and the defendant is also willing to occupy a portion of the suit premises, in such a situation, on payment of rent to be fixed by the court as required under the Act or the entire suit premises is required by the landlord to serve his personal need and requirement. The trial court will try to dispose of this matter expeditiously and preferably within four months from the date of receipt of the record. Office is directed to remit the Lower court record without any further delay. 10. Accordingly, this revision is allowed only in part as mentioned above but without any costs.